Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15 and 17-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858), Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) and Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) does not disclose an embedded webserver communicating camera control inputs and a video server transmitting video data, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang discloses a webserver transmitting video from the telepresence robot 10 to the computing device 200 ([0076], [0077], [0086], [0087]). Kanma discloses transmitting camera control inputs to camera control device 110 via an embedded webserver ([0060], [0061], [0154], [0212]). The combination results in the webserver of Wang transmitting video and the embedded webserver of Kanma transmitting the camera controls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858), herein Wang, in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350), herein Kanma, in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028), herein Westermo.
Consider claim 1, Wang clearly teaches a telepresence system, (Fig. 29) comprising:
at least one telepresence device including a digital camera having camera control inputs and a video feed output; (Fig. 1: Telepresence robot 10 includes cameras 26, 28, 108, which may be controlled to pan and tilt, and outputs video feeds to computing device 200, [0051]-[0053], [0058], [0060], [0076].) and
at least one video server configured to transmit real-time video data from the digital camera to a remote device, (Fig. 24: Images captured by cameras, 26, 28, 108 are transmitted from telepresence robot 10 to computing device 200 via a web server, [0076], [0077], [0086], [0087].) wherein the remote device has a web browser, (Fig. 31: Computing device 200 includes internet browser 384, [0091].) wherein the camera control inputs are communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device, (Figs. 24-26: Commands from pan and tilt control interface 208 are transmitted from computing device 200 to telepresence robot 10 via the Internet, [0053], [0076], [0086].)and wherein the video server communicates the video feed output to the remote device. (Fig. 24: Images captured by cameras, 26, 28, 108 are transmitted from telepresence robot 10 to computing device 200 via a web server, [0076], [0077], [0086], [0087].)
However, Wang does not explicitly teach a telepresence device including an embedded webserver the camera control inputs are communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device via the embedded webserver.
In an analogous art, Kanma, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches a telepresence device including an embedded webserver the camera control inputs are communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device via the embedded webserver. (Figs. 1, 17: Camera control commands input to sending source operation region 5203 are transmitted to the camera control device 110 via an embedded server, [0060], [0061], [0154], [0212].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang by the camera control inputs are communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device via the embedded webserver, as taught by Kanma, to achieve the predictable result of enabling a web browser to access the remote device.
However, Wang combined with Kanma does not explicitly teach transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection.
In an analogous art, Westermo, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection. (Video data is transmitted using a secure socket layer, [0070].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma by transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection, as taught by Westermo, for the benefit of securely transmitting the video content.
Consider claim 2, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the camera control inputs include at least one of: a camera power input, a camera pan input, camera tilt input, and a camera focus input. (Figs. 24-26: Pan and tilt interface 208, [0086] Wang)
Consider claim 8, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the secure socket connection comprises an encrypted socket connection. (SSL, [0070] Westermo)
Consider claim 9, Wang clearly teaches a telepresence device (Fig. 29) comprising:
a digital camera having at least two control inputs selected from: a camera power input, a camera pan input, camera tilt input, and a camera focus input; (Fig. 1: Telepresence robot 10 includes cameras 26, 28, 108, which may be controlled to pan and tilt, and outputs video feeds to computing device 200, [0051]-[0053], [0058], [0060], [0076].)
receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way updates with digital camera information and parameters between the digital camera and the remote device; (Figs. 24-26: Commands from pan and tilt control interface 208 are transmitted from computing device 200 to telepresence robot 10 via the Internet, [0053], [0076], [0086].) and
a video server configured to transmit real-time video data from the digital camera to the remote device. (Fig. 24: Images captured by cameras, 26, 28, 108 are transmitted from telepresence robot 10 to computing device 200 via a web server, [0076], [0077], [0086], [0087].)
However, Wang does not explicitly teach an embedded webserver configured to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between the digital camera and the remote device.
In an analogous art, Kanma, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches an embedded webserver configured to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between the digital camera and the remote device. (Figs. 1, 17: Camera control commands input to sending source operation region 5203 are transmitted to the camera control device 110 via an embedded server over an asynchronous packet network, [0060], [0061], [0084], [0154], [0212].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang by an embedded webserver configured to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between the digital camera and the remote device, as taught by Kanma, to achieve the predictable result of enabling a web browser to access the remote device.
However, Wang combined with Kanma does not explicitly teach transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection.
In an analogous art, Westermo, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection. (Video data is transmitted using a secure socket layer, [0070].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma by transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection, as taught by Westermo, for the benefit of securely transmitting the video content.
Consider claim 11, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the embedded webserver ([0060], [0061] Kanma) uses (a) standard HTTP requests to receive commands from the user interface (XMLHttpRequest, [0077] Wang) and/or (b) persistent WebSocket connections with a client to provide two-way asynchronous updates with device information and parameters.
Consider claim 13, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the embedded webserver serves the user interface as a webpage to a client. (External device 102 uses a web browser to access the embedded server, [0061] Kanma.)
Consider claim 17, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the secure socket connection comprises an encrypted socket connection. (SSL, [0070] Westermo)
Consider claim 18, Wang clearly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 30, [0088]) of a telepresence device (Fig. 1: Telepresence robot 10, [0051])
causes the telepresence device to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way updates with digital camera information and parameters between a digital camera of telepresence device and the remote device; (Figs. 24-26: Commands from pan and tilt control interface 208 are transmitted from computing device 200 to telepresence robot 10 via the Internet, [0053], [0076], [0086].) and
a video server causes the telepresence device to transmit real-time video data from the digital camera to the remote device. (Fig. 24: Images captured by cameras, 26, 28, 108 are transmitted from telepresence robot 10 to computing device 200 via a web server, [0076], [0077], [0086], [0087].)
However, Wang does not explicitly teach an embedded webserver that causes the telepresence device to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between a digital camera of telepresence device and the remote device.
In an analogous art, Kanma, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches an embedded webserver that causes the telepresence device to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between a digital camera of telepresence device and the remote device. (Figs. 1, 17: Camera control commands input to sending source operation region 5203 are transmitted to the camera control device 110 via an embedded server over an asynchronous packet network, [0060], [0061], [0084], [0154], [0212].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang by an embedded webserver that causes the telepresence device to receive digital camera control commands from a user interface of a remote device and provide two-way asynchronous updates with digital camera information and parameters between a digital camera of telepresence device and the remote device, as taught by Kanma, to achieve the predictable result of enabling a web browser to access the remote device.
However, Wang combined with Kanma does not explicitly teach transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection.
In an analogous art, Westermo, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection. (Video data is transmitted using a secure socket layer, [0070].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma by transmit real-time video data from the digital camera, over a secure socket connection, as taught by Westermo, for the benefit of securely transmitting the video content.
Consider claim 19, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the embedded webserver serves the user interface as a webpage to a client. (External device 102 uses a web browser to access the embedded server, [0061] Kanma.)
Consider claim 23, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the secure socket connection comprises an encrypted socket connection. (SSL, [0070] Westermo)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Saleh et al. (US 9,479,732), herein Saleh.
Consider claim 3, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the at least one telepresence device includes a mobile base (Fig. 1: Base 18, [0059] Wang) and the at least one telepresence device includes at least one obstacle sensor input, (Telepresence robot 10 includes a plurality of sensors for detection of objects and persons, [0060] Wang.) and at least one mobile base drive motor control input, and wherein the at least one mobile base drive motor control input is communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device (Figs. 24-26: Commands received from mobile control interface are sent from computing device 200 to telepresence robot 10 to control movement of the drive wheel assemblies 112, [0059], [0079], [0086] Wang.) via the embedded webserver. ([0060], [0061] Kanma)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach at least one mast height control input, wherein the at least one mast height control input is communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device.
In an analogous art, Saleh, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches at least one mast height control input, wherein the at least one mast height control input is communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device. (Fig. 2B: Neck 250 is commanded to alter the height of head 260 based on commands received from the remote user 10, col. 10 lines 43-56, col. 24 lines 7-11.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by at least one mast height control input, wherein the at least one mast height control input is communicated from the remote device to the at least one telepresence device, as taught by Saleh, for the benefit of adjusting the height of the device.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Kvaal et al. (US 2016/0359941), herein Kvaal.
Consider claim 4, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the video server. (Web server, [0077] Wang)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach the video server (a) handles and negotiates connections and distribution of a video feed from the digital camera to multiple remote devices and/or (b) uses Node.js that executes JavaScript code to enable real time transmission of data over secure socket connections.
In an analogous art, Kvaal, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches the video server (a) handles and negotiates connections and distribution of a video feed from the digital camera to multiple remote devices (Central production module 14 is installed at a server and broadcasts the video to a plurality of endpoint devices 10 over Internet 12, [0017], [0020], [0021].) and/or (b) uses Node.js that executes JavaScript code to enable real time transmission of data over secure socket connections.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by the video server (a) handles and negotiates connections and distribution of a video feed from the digital camera to multiple remote devices and/or (b) uses Node.js that executes JavaScript code to enable real time transmission of data over secure socket connections, as taught by Kvaal, for the benefit of distributing the video content to more than one viewer.
Consider claim 6, Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Kvaal clearly teaches there is a broadcast functionality in a Node server that captures raw data from a camera sensor and handles multiplexing and encoding of the video feed to multiple remote devices. (Central production module 14 is installed at a server and receives the raw video, encodes the video into any format, then broadcasts the video to a plurality of endpoint devices 10 over Internet 12, [0017], [0020], [0021] Kvaal.)
Claims 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Hanrahan et al. (US 11,154,981), herein Hanrahan.
Consider claim 7, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches client functionality in a Node server ports the video feed to a user interface of the web browser. (A user interacts with a web server to receive the video feeds in a requested layout in a webpage, [0077] Wang.)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach accepting requests from a broadcaster.
In an analogous art, Hanrahan, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches accepting requests from a broadcaster. (Figs. 7A, 7C: A user can request to join the session with the robot and receive the video feed, col. 7 lines 1-15)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by accepting requests from a broadcaster, as taught by Hanrahan, for the benefit of allowing interested viewers to view the video feed.
Consider claim 14, Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Hanrahan clearly teaches the user interface has two modes of operation: an observation mode (Fig. 4: Observer stations 16b, 16C, col. 5 line 35 to col. 6 line 38 Hanrahan.) and a controller mode. Fig. 4: Master remote station 16A, col. 5 line 35 to col. 6 line 38 Hanrahan.)
Consider claim 15, Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Hanrahan clearly teaches a user (a) in observation mode has access to a video feed (Fig. 4: Observer stations 16b, 16C, col. 5 line 35 to col. 6 line 38 Hanrahan.) and/or (b) in controller mode has full access to pan, tilt, zoom and focus controls of the camera.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Philips et al. (US 12,124,097), herein Phillips.
Consider claim 10, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the embedded webserver. ([0060] Kanma)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach the embedded webserver is written in a Python programming language using a micro web framework Flask.
In an analogous art, Phillips, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches the embedded webserver is written in a Python programming language using a micro web framework Flask. (col. 7 lines 41-44)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by the embedded webserver is written in a Python programming language using a micro web framework Flask, as taught by Phillips, for the benefit of utilizing a well-known framework.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Burgess et al. (US 2005/0198245), herein Burgess, in view of Chiavetta et al. (US 2021/0176083), herein Chiavetta.
Consider claim 20, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the embedded server ([0060] Kanma) and the video server. (Web server, [0077] Wang)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach the video server hosted on a single board computer.
In an analogous art, Burgess, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches the video server hosted on a single board computer. (Fig. 5B: Video compression module 310 is a single board and transmits compressed video to remote IP users, [0072]-[0074].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by the video server hosted on a single board computer, as taught by Burgess, for the benefit of reducing the size and cost of the device.
However, Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Burgess does not explicitly teach the embedded server hosted on a single board computer.
In an analogous art, Chiavetta, which discloses a system for computer networking, clearly teaches the embedded server hosted on a single board computer. (Single board computer 104 includes an embedded web server, [0052].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Burgess by the embedded server hosted on a single board computer, as taught by Chiavetta, for the benefit of reducing the size and cost of the device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Chiavetta et al. (US 2021/0176083) in view of Burgess et al. (US 2005/0198245), herein Burgess.
Consider claim 21, Wang combined with Kanma, Westermo and Chiavetta clearly teaches the embedded server ([0060] Kanma) provides instructions to a communication bus that sends instructions to motor controllers for camera pan, tilt, zoom and focus functionality. (Figs. 16, 17, 30: Telepresence robot 10 includes system bus 306 and controls pan and tilt motors 34, 102, [0052], [0053], [0088] Wang.)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach the embedded server provides instructions to one or more interfaces of the single board computer wherein the one or more interfaces includes an I2C communication bus.
In an analogous art, Burgess, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches the embedded server provides instructions to one or more interfaces of the single board computer wherein the one or more interfaces includes an I2C communication bus. (Fig. 5B: Video compression module 310 is a single board and includes I2C bus 351, [0072].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by the embedded server provides instructions to one or more interfaces of the single board computer wherein the one or more interfaces includes an I2C communication bus, as taught by Burgess, for the benefit of reducing the size and cost of the device.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0033858) in view of Kanma et al. (US 2022/0078350) in view of Westermo et al. (US 2017/0344028) in view of Li et al. (CN 208479837), herein Li, citations refer to provided English translation.
Consider claim 22, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo clearly teaches the telepresence device includes, video data from a digital camera image sensor is received and encoding the video data for video transmission to a remote device via the video server. ([0076], [0077] Wang)
However, Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo does not explicitly teach a single board computer having a camera serial interface (CSI), wherein video data from a digital camera image sensor is received through the camera serial interface, and wherein the single board computer encodes the video data.
In an analogous art, Hanrahan, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches a single board computer having a camera serial interface (CSI), wherein video data from a digital camera image sensor is received through the camera serial interface, and wherein the single board computer encodes the video data. (A Raspberry Pi board receives images from a camera via the CSI connector and encodes the images into H.264 format, pg. 2 lines 42-44 and pg. 4 lines 20-23.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang combined with Kanma and Westermo by a single board computer having a camera serial interface (CSI), wherein video data from a digital camera image sensor is received through the camera serial interface, and wherein the single board computer encodes the video data, as taught by Hanrahan, for the benefit of reducing the size and price of the device (pg. 2 lines 14-15).
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425